2 ms·
The framing of "uniting" or "reconciling" QM and GR is actually bad. The real problem is this: both QM and GR have been proven by experiments to be wrong. GR p
by simiones 3y ago
The framing of "uniting" or "reconciling" QM and GR is actually bad.
The real problem is this: both QM and GR have been proven by experiments to be wrong. GR predicts entirely wrong results for the motion of electrons and other small particles. QM predicts wrong results at galactic scales.
However, they both work very very well at certain scales. So we don't want to get rid of them. Instead, we want to find some rule that tells us when to use the math of GR, and when to use the math of QM, so that we don't need to guess and just pretend that they are right.
- orwin 3y agoI agree with that, but I wasn't clear I think. You can find euclidian geometric proof of some standard arithmetic theorems, but geometry isn't the right tool to prove really complex arithmetic theorems. Try to make euclidian geometry complete enough to resolve all arithmetic, and you will probably find yourself in front of contradictions (I stopped doing math after my bachelor, so I clearly might be wrong about that). Why do we need to expand th9se theory? First correct the issues left within the defined context. Then find more contexts and see if you can define a new theory or use an old one?